• Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.

The abuse of 1 Timothy 5:8 as a "male provider role"

D

DiscipleOfChrist

Member
It should infuriate ANY of us to see people go so far into the realm of coercing Scripture into saying what they want it to say that it gets to the point where they are straight-up refusing to read the words on the page:

1 Timothy 5:8
But if anyone does not provide for his relatives, and especially for members of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever

The word for "anyone" used here, "tis," is absolutely indisputably gender-neutral. It does not use the Greek word for "man."

Luke 10:38
Now as they went on their way, Jesus entered a village. And a woman named Martha welcomed him into her house.

The word "tis" is used here also, in reference to a woman, Martha.

I'm going to go even further. Even IF the word the word in 1 Timothy 5 8 DID use the word for "man," which it doesn't, even that couldn't assert gender-specific on its own because the Bible uses context -- in ADDITION to use of the word for "man" -- to clearly indicate that the subject is men, not women.

Matthew 14:21
"The number of those who ate was about five thousand men, besides women and children."

Now here we can see that the word for men is distinctly used and yet the text STILL explicitly indicates that the "five thousand" were men -- male -- not female. So the text doesn't just say "five thousand men." It goes specifically out of its way to spell out that that number doesn't include women.

This makes sense that context is necessary to understand that only men are the subject because quite often words like "brethren," despite being male, apply to men and women alike. For example:

Philippians 4:8
Finally, brethren, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is of good repute, if there is any excellence and if anything worthy of praise, dwell on these things.

This clearly applies to everyone, male or female. No one tries to argue that this or many other passages where the audience is addressed as "brethren" doesn't actually address all people.

So the point is this: interpreting 1 Timothy 5 8 as referring to "any man," not women, is preposterous, in any literal OR interpretive sense, to the point that it is truly a case of refusal to acknowledge the word on the page. The verse is a million miles from saying any such thing.

In short, family takes care of family, and that's the what the context indicates. Assigning a provider "gender role" here is not a concept whatsoever. In fact, 1 Timothy 5:8 is actually firm proof that there actually IS no "male provider role" in its gender-neutrality as it directly asserts family providing for family with nothing implying (or even suggesting) any gendered direction.
 
Last edited:
Methinks thou doth protest too much.
 
DiscipleOfChrist said:
In short, family takes care of family, and that's the what the context indicates. Assigning a provider "gender role" here is not a concept whatsoever. In fact, 1 Timothy 5:8 is actually firm proof that there actually IS no "male provider role" in its gender-neutrality as it directly asserts family providing for family with nothing implying (or even suggesting) any gendered direction.
Click to expand...
Interesting!

He also said if we do, or don't do things to others (the least of these my brethren) it is the same as doing (or not doing) it to Him.
It would make sense then that caring for those closest to us is a minimum expectation for people of faith.

Thanks for bringing that out.
 
DiscipleOfChrist said:
It should infuriate ANY of us to see people go so far into the realm of coercing Scripture into saying what they want it to say that it gets to the point where they are straight-up refusing to read the words on the page:

1 Timothy 5:8
But if anyone does not provide for his relatives, and especially for members of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever

The word for "anyone" used here, "tis," is absolutely indisputably gender-neutral. It does not use the Greek word for "man."

Luke 10:38
Now as they went on their way, Jesus entered a village. And a woman named Martha welcomed him into her house.

The word "tis" is used here also, in reference to a woman, Martha.

I'm going to go even further. Even IF the word the word in 1 Timothy 5 8 DID use the word for "man," which it doesn't, even that couldn't assert gender-specific on its own because the Bible uses context -- in ADDITION to use of the word for "man" -- to clearly indicate that the subject is men, not women.

Matthew 14:21
"The number of those who ate was about five thousand men, besides women and children."

Now here we can see that the word for men is distinctly used and yet the text STILL explicitly indicates that the "five thousand" were men -- male -- not female. So the text doesn't just say "five thousand men." It goes specifically out of its way to spell out that that number doesn't include women.

This makes sense that context is necessary to understand that only men are the subject because quite often words like "brethren," despite being male, apply to men and women alike. For example:

Philippians 4:8
Finally, brethren, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is of good repute, if there is any excellence and if anything worthy of praise, dwell on these things.

This clearly applies to everyone, male or female. No one tries to argue that this or many other passages where the audience is addressed as "brethren" doesn't actually address all people.

So the point is this: interpreting 1 Timothy 5 8 as referring to "any man," not women, is preposterous, in any literal OR interpretive sense, to the point that it is truly a case of refusal to acknowledge the word on the page. The verse is a million miles from saying any such thing.

In short, family takes care of family, and that's the what the context indicates. Assigning a provider "gender role" here is not a concept whatsoever. In fact, 1 Timothy 5:8 is actually firm proof that there actually IS no "male provider role" in its gender-neutrality as it directly asserts family providing for family with nothing implying (or even suggesting) any gendered direction.
Click to expand...
Joh_1:11 He cameG2064 untoG1519 his own,G2398 andG2532 his ownG2398 receivedG3880 himG846 not.G3756

1Ti 5:8 ButG1161 ifG1487 anyG5100 provide not forG4306 G3756 his own,G2398 andG2532 speciallyG3122 for those of his own house,G3609 he hath deniedG720 theG3588 faith,G4102 andG2532 isG2076 worseG5501 than an infidel.G571
 
Man_in_the_Middle said:
Joh_1:11 He cameG2064 untoG1519 his own,G2398 andG2532 his ownG2398 receivedG3880 himG846 not.G3756

1Ti 5:8 ButG1161 ifG1487 anyG5100 provide not forG4306 G3756 his own,G2398 andG2532 speciallyG3122 for those of his own house,G3609 he hath deniedG720 theG3588 faith,G4102 andG2532 isG2076 worseG5501 than an infidel.G571
Click to expand...
Neither of those quotes implies gender.

Titus 2:5 "to be discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their ownG2398 husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed."

The word "own" here is explicitly G2398 - idios - the exact same word used in 1 Timothy 5:8, and here it is directly attached to women referring to what belongs to them.

This is a direct refutation of any claim that G2398/idios implies a male subject. The word is completely gender-neutral in its function and simply indicates belonging or relationship regardless of who the subject is.

The Greek word translated "his own" is "idios" (G2398) which simply means "one's own" - indicating relationship or belonging. It carries no gender designation whatsoever.

Your John 1:11 parallel actually backfires on you. In that verse "his own" refers to Jesus, who is male - so the possessive pronoun follows the subject's gender. That's exactly the point: "idios" itself doesn't carry gender. The subject determines how it gets rendered in translation.

And the subject in 1 Timothy 5:8 is "tis" (G5100) - which is indisputably gender-neutral, as even a basic Greek reference confirms. "His own" in the English translation is simply the translator defaulting to conventional rendering following the subject. It is not a declaration that the subject is male.

You are essentially looking at an English translation's conventional rendering and treating it as proof of a gender designation in the Greek text. That's not exegesis. That's ignoring the underlying Greek entirely.

The subject of 1 Timothy 5:8 is gender-neutral. "Idios" carries no gender. Therefore nothing in this verse designates provision as a male responsibility. The argument collapses the moment you actually look at the Greek rather than an English translation.

You need BOTH of these things to assert a male provider role:
*The Greek word for "man" in 1 Timothy 5:8
AND
*A surrounding context ensuring that it's a distinction (as I mentioned in my post)

You have neither. The gender-neutral command for family to provide for family -- an obligation -- is incompatible with the claim of any biblical notion of "male provider role."
 
Last edited:
DiscipleOfChrist said:
No. Mocking the pursuit of biblical accuracy is immediately revealing about the lack of authenticity of someone's faith.
Click to expand...
Yet you label me as a false brother.
 
DiscipleOfChrist said:
Correct. I recommend repenting and taking the pursuit of biblical accuracy seriously.
Click to expand...
You make a lot of assumptions.
In the pursuit of Biblical accuracy, where does it say that false brethren are saved?
 
Maddog said:
Hey DOC, I do recommend reading more of Steve's writings before your quick pronouncement of "false brother".
Click to expand...
Then I recommend that he take the pursuit of biblical accuracy seriously.

It's one thing not to engage (for lack of time/energy/whatever), but to show up and just drop a mocking comment with no substance whatsoever is indeed the behavior of a false brother.
 
Whilst trying to justify labeling me as a false brother, please consider how to explain to us what your reasoning is for rejecting male support of the family.

Hint:
You are ignoring some really important facts that are in the Bible.
 
steve said:
Whilst trying to justify labeling me as a false brother, please consider how to explain to us what your reasoning is for rejecting male support of the family.

Hint:
You are ignoring some really important facts that are in the Bible.
Click to expand...
Consider actually reading my original post.

Good grief, are you for real? Now you're acting like I didn't present anything in the first place.
 
Try actually answering the questions.
 
No, I’m just mocking your attempts at being intelligent.

1). Explain how a false brother can be walking in salvation.
2). Your post obviously tries to dismantle the idea of male responsibility for providing for the family. I’m asking why, what point are you trying to make?
 
Hmmm, "just showed up" reveals you have not read earlier posts. This is an open forum that is easily researched. Perhaps different phrasing could be in order.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top